I also feel that including EIP-7002: Execution Layer Triggerable Exits would be a good choice for the network, being crucial not only for liquid staking protocols, and pretty sure not only for Lido.
What I am afraid of is after enabling EIP-7044: Perpetually valid signed voluntary exits in Dencun, there will be a long-term tail risk of storing and distributing the exit messages in staking protocols involving increased trust assumptions.
If EIP-7002 wasn’t included, it’s predictable that protocols trying to build a permissionless validator set (e.g., requiring bonds) would try to rely on joining the set with a pre-signed exit message intent. The message then should be stored and split in a distributed way. However, as the messages will have an infinite expiration time, it would pose a risk of falsely ‘losing’ the pieces or, in contrast, firing up exits spuriously, potentially leading to turbulence or fund losses.
In contrast, if EIP-7002 is implemented, the trust level built into the staking protocols would be reduced, not expanded.
Finally, EL triggerable exits are akin to Account Abstraction direction: getting rid of UX and trust issues with a smart contract that’s where Ethereum is great.
Thank you for raising this on the topic.